Religion and politics.

AFI:

Just like there was no way a really old African American woman could mount a challenge to segregation laws. But Rosa Parks did. She believed (and I agree in that case) that segregation laws were unjust. By the same token, the gay community (if that's politically incorrect, so be it) believe that the position of Religeon towards them is intolerable (I can see that, even though I disagree with them), and could drag this to court. This would draw the media's attention, and the wrong judge could rule in their favour.

But the elected official needs an accurate reflection of the will of the people or else he may misrepresent his constituency. The Faithful need to have that voice heard.

@Morgoroth:

Isn't that the point of this thread? I thought you were saying that Religeous organizations should stay out of the political arena? Did I win the main arguement and nobody tell me? I've been advocating that they use their freedom of speech, and having people (including you) disagree with me.

I don't want them sent to jail for this, but I don't want the government telling them that this is okay. It's morally wrong to engage in same sex relations, but it's also wrong to lock up people for it too.

Didn't you just say that you weren't trying to take away the freedom of speech to religeous organizations? But yet, you wish to proscribe our freedom to teach the doctrine. Granted, it can be phrased differently, but that's the stance that the Catholic church takes to my knowledge. The stance can be taken that we bear no hatred or ill will towards homosexuals, but we can't condone their choices in their relationships. I've used that line only to have it called bull****.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't trust Judges that tend to rule against the religeous traditions of our ancestors and politicians that only care about making enough people happy that they can keep their position and draw outrageous salaries out of public coffers that can't really afford to pay them...

Same Sex Marriage and abortion are moral issues. That's the point I've been arguing for three pages here, and a few posts in the thread on the New Pope.

It's the politicians that seek to use the church for political means. This too is dangerous ground. One of the Ten Commandments explicitly states that "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." This is not simply a commandment to watch your language, but that if you claim to speak for God, you will be accountable for it. And if you're wrong, God won't be pleased. George W. Bush championed the church's stance on several moral issues in order to annoint himself as God's Candidate--which, if I'm not mistaken is what you really oppose. Let's keep the blame where it belongs...

@Rallyama:

The Church is seeking to represent their faithful. If their faithful represent the majority, then they should have that right. There are some of the faithful that would consider certain legal stances a betrayal of the people that bothered to vote.

I don't seek the criminalization of Homosexuality, but I don't want it promoted in the mainstream by our Governments either. I cannot control the media, but I ought to have a say in the government. Likewise, the Church cannot prevent the individual to do something, but their faithful have the right to vote. Unless you want to deprive the faithful of their rights in a democracy, then you cannot truly separate church and state.

This is not a case of trying new dishes at a buffet table, it IS a case of right and wrong. Would you punish your son for stealing a candy bar? Would you tolerate him disobeying you? Would you not correct him for using bad language and a rude tone in front of company? Would you condone him lying to you to cover his misdeeds? Like wise, Christainity regards God as a Father. He has given us certain rules. The Church campaigns against anyone telling the children of God (that's all of us according to the Bible) that we don't have to obey His commandments. Telling the church otherwise is the same as telling you that you have no right to be upset with someone that teaches your son a song with a lot of bad words in it.

@dmc:

As I tried to make the point with RuneQuester, when the holy men (Scribes and PHarisees in the old testament, Cardinals and inquisitioners since that time) have went beyond the core doctrine, they were able to err. Interracial marriage, The sun revolving around the earth, the earth being flat, that wasn't mentioned in the scriptures. Prohibitions on Homosexuality are explicitly in the scriptures.

There has been cases in some countries where Preachers have been charged for preaching passages in the Bible where homosexual acts are forbidden. Under the Law in Canada (the one that was passed), that could happen. This threatens to make criminals out of honest ministers...

@Chandos:

This goes back to people speaking for God when they don't have their facts straight...

 

I consider it unethical for religious organisations to meddle in politics just like you consider homosexuality to be immoral, but I don't want to deny them the right to speak no more than you want to deny homosexuals the right to exist.

And I don't want priests who say it's wrong be sent to jail but I don't want the government condemning anyone because of their sexuality.

I'm all for free speech but there is a law atleast in Finland against hate speech. It does not require you to accept homosexuals. It does not require you to state that homosexuality is allright. It does not even deny you the right to condemn homosexuality. It does however require you to treat homosexuals with respect. Is that really so terrible a breach of the freedom of speech? Attacking someone's ethnicality is about the gravest of verbal insults someone can pull and it should be punished accordingly.

If the priest would say it politely like the way you said it above, he would be in no sort of trouble.

The judges can't override the constitution and even for politicians it's very difficult. If you can't trust the courts and can't trust politicians then who do you trust?

Correct, but I also oppose Churches that let this happen without opposition and claim that voting for something is sin etc. Generally I oppose attempts from the Church to reglate political behaviour. Not that I would deny them the right to affect people, that would be as you said denying the freedom of speech. I just find it unethical for the Churches to do so.

When you try to deny your followers the right to do these things, you are dealing with moral issues. When you try to deny everyone the right to do these things, you are dealing with political issues.

 

Gnarfflinger, are you aware that there is a difference between "allow" and "force"? Between "mandatory" and voluntary"? Then maybe you will admit that a law that allows same sex marriages does by no means force anyone to marry another person of the same gender. No one forces you to become gay.

I just don't see how a law about same sex marriage could possibly have an impact on the lives of the faithful or the teachings of your church.

Of course, there is this evangelizing issue. You just can't stand it that different people have a different set of morals, right? Think about tolerance again, please, since you so feverishly call upon tolerance for yourself. Tolerance is not just about granting others the right to speak but to grant the right to do as well.

As to the secularization issue: "I voted for a conservative candidate because of my believes - so, clearly, we have no separation of church and state!" Come on. Do you really see no error in reasoning here? Unbelievable...

[ May 15, 2005, 09:08: Message edited by: Darkthrone ]

 

The argument in my country is that same sex marriage undermines the perceived idea of what a family should be. A same sex marriage veers away from the "ideal" of what a family should be. That's also the reason why divorce isn't allowed here as well. Now obviously religion plays a part in it but the reason I mentioned isn't merely a religious argument. Admittedly the clamor for same sex marriage here isn't that great. Divorce is though.

 

I know. The point is: the faithfuls' idea of marriage and family is not undermined, because there certainly is no shift in their understanding and perception of "family". Those with a different perception are not faithful. We have to seperated groups (the faithfuls and the commies ) with different morals and worldviews.

Now, one group is trying to interfere with the lifestyle of the other group. Based upon the idea "that we always did it like that well perhaps not always but the misunderstandings of the past are now overcome and we have the perfect standards of a perfect life right now so join us you and if you don't then how dare you deny us the right to speak up for what we see as our home turf and moral soil you trudged upon."

Lovely chaps, them.

 

I've tried rephrasing my point two different ways now Gnarff, and I doubt attempting a third way would do me any good. All I can say is if you think that judges are going to impose a law on a church forcing them to condone gay marriage and carry out the same, you are just wrong.

 

What!? Is there actually some corner in the western world where divorce is not allowed? So you can't legally get divorce? I'm not aware of a single method of torture that is more cruel than locking someone in a unhappy marriage. A hell without escape.
*Shudders just at the thought of it*

 

So we now have to pay for the freedom of religeon? The danger of taxing Religeous organizations is that they will demand more from the government. Like the right to tell their representatives that they are going to hell if they vote against the Church. Like the right to have their doctrines supported in law (obviously if over 50 percent of a nation is on the rolls of these various organizations, then the majority must oppose gay Marriage or believe that abortion is murder). Then rather than a separation of church and state, they will be fighting to control the other...

But these are moral issues that they are speaking on. They aren't trying to influence the federal budget, or foreign affairs. They are preaching to a large chunk of the population about moral issues.

Condemning the practice of same sex relations is not the same as inciting mob violence against those who practice it. It should not be illegal or unethical to forbid the practice, but it should be illegal and immoral to gather a lynch mob to burn a gay man at the stake.

That is also the logic for voting against gay marriage. Religeons that teach that man is accountable to God (most christian faiths) require us to answer to God for all our decisions (including who we vote for). Hence our faith is to be reflected at the ballot box. Politicians who realize that they have a strong Christian following in their areas should consider this when they vote on such moral issues.

They affect people to vote for politicians that promise to uphold their views on morality. In areas with strong religeous populations, the politicians who do support these causes are more successful. The only way to change this is to absolutely silence the church.

By that logic, same sex relations are a choice. It's a choice that religeous groups forbid. These organizations would feel betrayed if politicians legitimized these sins by making them openly accepted in the mainstream of society. They will speak, the faithful will listen. And they will remember that in the next election...

It's not just one person, but millions of them voting along the lines of the church. Politicians ignore the church at their own peril. If the disparity between the church and the platform of a candidate is wide enough, then more of the faithful will vote against them. The church holds no official power, but wield tremendous influence...

And in many faiths, the definition of marriage is different that under the law. It is a sacred covenent, rather than just a tax shelter. It is strictly between a man and a woman, not any two consenting adults. Divorce happens, but should be a last resort. Any attempts to define marriage otherwise, is an attack on these faiths. They have the right to defend themselves...

Actually, it is an attempt to change the definition of marriage. It will be the new definition of marriage that will be crammed down the throats of children in schools. The old definition of Marriage will be wrong when a child takes that in to the classroom. It will teach the younger generation that marriage is no longer a sacred covenant, but a legal convenience. This is what the church is fighting to protect.

Freedom of religeon is under attack, whether the rest of you want to admit it or not. The Church is fighting for it's life, not its own agenda.

 

Freedom of religion is not under attack. It is freedom FROM religion that is under attack.

 

Not really. No more than an individual pays for his freedom of speech by paying taxes.

Moral yes but also political. Therefore their preaching in my view is unethical and an effort of reaching for material power. Something a Church should never try to reach for.

Which is really what I said in my last post. Except that you must be careful about how you condemn it. Poking at individuals and screaming that they will burn in hell is a personal insult on ethnicality and therefore illegal.

I agree and have all the time agreed, but this does not require the Church involving itself in political decisions. It requires Chrstian candidates who then can preach about political issues, and usually in every election just about everywhere in the western world there are Christian candidates who represent the Christian views.

These politicians have their own campaigns. When a Church gets involved in that campaigning it once agains meddles in politics and in my view acts unethically.

No Church has no monopoly over marriage, it has not had that for a long time.

The influence of different Churches varies a lot around the globe. Churches in the US have a lot of influence while in Scandinavia their influence is quite limited.

The thing that is under attack here is really the superiority of religion not the freedom of religion. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

WRONG! The only thing that's under attack is freedom FROM religion, which has to go hand-in-had with freedom OF religion, and YOU'RE the one attacking it, Gnarfflinger!

You don't get it, and apparently don't want to get it. I'm done with you.

 

The conclusion is obvious: to you, unethical is preaching that morals are relevant in politics. So what, politics without morals is the ethical choice, right? Can't agree with that.

Neither can I agree with any logical construct suggesting that preaching a moral principle becomes unethical the moment someone else's politics start to touch on the subject.

This is easily reduced to absurd by the following example: imagine a drow society with all the houses sacrificing to Lloth, consorting with daemons etc etc. There comes a single house who turns to Eilistraee and preaches that sacrificing your own kind to deities is wrong, so is breeding driders, cambrions and other such and, of course, summoning daemons. So now the renegade CG house is the unethical ones because it fails to stay quiet about the other houses' practices?

Ridiculous. Another absurd result of that logic is the conviction that the only ethical choice whatsoever is shutting up.

However, logically, if it's unethical for churches to preach against homosexuality just because some politicans align themselves with gay lobbies, then why is it ethical to preach against what the churches preach, on the grounds that pro-life political movements share the view? My BS detector rings loud. Looks like things work one way only.

Explain please the mysterious link between homosexualism, abortion, stem cell research etc and ethnicity.

It's no more illegal to tell someone that he will burn in hell than to point at him with your finger and ramble on how intolerant and bigoted he is.

 

You are now badly twisting my words and drawing your own conclusions in a way I don't really appreciate. Church still does not have a monopoly over moralic discussion and neither should they involve themselves in moralic discussion which is political. They can discuss among their flocks what is wrong and what is right, but what is right or wrong on national level is decided by the government.

No it's not wrong for a Church to preach against homosexuality. It's wrong to insult homosexuals however especially when you direct that at an individual. Are you now saying that we should stop treating homosexuals as normal people? And just for the record, if a Church stays out of politics then yes it's unethical for politicians to start publicly condemning the moral preaching of the Church, and no politician in this country is doing that to my best knowledge.

I'm still not saying it's unethical for a Church to preach against abortion which is a moral issue. I'm saying that it's unethical to particiapte in any sort of political campaigning. You religious guys have serious problems in comprehending that.

Homosexuals = ethnical minority. None of the other things have nothing to do with ethnicity and I'm not sure why you are asking me that? Read my posts properly or don't read them at all.

Not entirely correct. Calling someone a intolerant bigot is not attacking one's ethnicity and I do not consider it to be equally severe. If you were a priest and screamed in a Church to someone sitting there that he'l burn in hell because he's gay, you would be quite clearly guilty of discriminative slander. Calling a priest a bigot therefore is no discrimination against any group of people. Some might consider that to be discriminative against priests but since that's a profession and ethnic group it ain't illegal. If you would however call a black priest a biggoted nigger, you would also be guilty of discrimantive slander. So it's really no "special right" of the homosexuals.

I'm not expecting you to accept my views, I never expect and never will expect anyone so closely tied to a religious institution to accept my views so I won't even bother to try. I will just conclude by saying that there are quite a few things that can blind one's judgement and blind belief is among the strongest.

Additionally I won't touch your example about about the drow because it just reeks of "holier than thou" attitude and I'm quite frankly very insulted that you compare the non religious to drow.

[ May 14, 2005, 21:25: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Hey, I'm non-religious and I like Drow... They're a very misunderstood people.

But seriously, my two penneth worth:

The problems arise when religion and politics mix. Unfortunately, drawing a boundary between the two is nigh-on impossible. Both have similarities in the way they operate: politicians seek votes; religions desire worshippers; both gain these by getting ordinary folks to agree with their philosophical viewpoints. So both will come into contact, inevitably, over issues where they both express opinions. This much is clear.

There are great issues that arise in the mechanism of the separation of Church and State. As chev rightly says:

Which is getting toward the heart of the problem: secular liberalism can be pursued as dogmatically as any religion. Don't believe me? Think of France, and the banning of overt religious symbols. While this appears to be, inherently, a doctrine-neutral standpoint, one could contest that it was an imposition of secular values over and above all religions; rather than welcoming each individual's choice of faith, the system seeks to suppress it. In essence, this is support of atheism - or agnosticism - over faith.

Now, you're probably wondering why this would trouble me. I have, after all, stated my personal position to be one of atheism. But this isn't about trying to carve out tribal borders between competing philosophies (which is really what we're talking about; the words "faith" or "religion" are red herrings that all too easily lead one down the wrong path). It's about giving each one their own space. I may not agree with what chev says about homosexuality (I don't) or abortion (I do, generally), but I absolutely will back his right to say it.

It's not about excluding religion or secularism from the debate; it's about allowing everyone to have their say, and letting the public decide. Which is, after all, "what democracy is all about". I hardly think it's likely that there's going to be a return to the bad old days of burnings etc. Unless, of course, secularism reaches the point of regularly trampling on peoples' firmly-held beliefs until there's a massive backlash.

Also, is it wrong to have a politician express religious views? Of course not. It's only wrong if an administration overly favours one particular side of the argument. This includes pro-secular bias.

Of course, this puts in the arena of no absolute answers, where we are constantly striving for balance, rather than "The" truth. Good. That's the best place to be. Life is not black & white. It's not even shades of grey. It's in colour. If you look through a black and white lens, you fail to perceive it correctly.

[ May 14, 2005, 22:47: Message edited by: The Magpie ]

 

I know and I do not support the French way. I do not support banning religion and I do not support silencing them.

So do I. I have never and I never will tell religious organisations to change their views about issues such as abortion nor will I deny their right to say that abortion is wrong.

I completely agree which is exactly why no government should base their laws on religious morals. Of course if there is a 100% Catholic country in which the population 100% agrees with the Church morals there will be no problem. The problem is that there are no such countries which is why I think a government should represent various views and offer room in the law for different opinions. I think that in a nation such as Portugal where in the last referendum about abortion 49% voted for abortion and 51% voted against it abortion should be legal.

 

No, I get you perfectly right: you say that where there is a political discussion on a subject which is a moral subject, then the Church should stay quiet. You can walk around this all you wish, but there's no avoiding this very basic thing.

"That country" is not my country. Homosexuals are people like you or I. Homosexuality is no more normal than influenza or common cold.

On your side, maybe you have a problem coming across with your points. What you're saying you aren't saying is exactly what it seems you're saying from what you're saying.

The French, The Spanish, The Polish and the homosexual? Use words properly or don't use them at all. There's no fault of mine in reading you if you don't understand what the word ethnic means.

Separation of church and state, anyone? If you can point at someone for breaking any given commandment or purely orderly religious or ecclesiastic regulation, now you're picking bits of a church's teaching that according to you the given centuries-old church should please start disregarding for the sake of modern trends? That's rich.

Calling a priest a bigot is no more discrimination than calling a homosexual person a fag.

How about a bigoted Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, whatever?

I'm only expecting you to use words correctly and apply basic logic, avoiding double standards working in favour of secularism.

You made that up. And replace "holier than thou" with "going to hell" and think how you would react to that if we switched sides (dmc's test ).

Agreed, The Magpie has nailed it on the head.

Agreed. Some people lash out on the Church for supposedly violating people's right to act as they will under law (ever seen a priest tying down two gay people so that they couldn't have sex?), but at the same time they have no problem demanding the trimming down of the church's freedom of mere expression, not even act. Or even conscience, not just expression. It's funny how the secularists tell the religious what they should believe and what adjustments they should make in their centuries or millennia old religions for the sake of a new trend.

[ May 14, 2005, 21:49: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

In a way yes. I feel that the Church has no buissnes in politics, I do however view that religious candidates have the full right to represent Church views as I fully support democracy. You saying that I want politics without morals is very much twisting my words and there is no avoiding that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

According to this article an ethnic group is "a group of people who identify with one another, or are so identified by others, on the basis of a boundary that separates them from other groups".
Homosexuals definently fits into this definition.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at (not to mention that I have no idea what ecclesiastic means). No, what I'm saying that you don't go and pick out individuals and insult them.
Homosexuality most certainly ain't a modern trend the "modern trend" is that they are no more burnt at stake. Additionally there is a difference between yelling that all homosexuals burn in hell and pointing at a homosexual and yelling that he will burn in hell. I'm sure you can see that.

I'll have to disagree. Sexuality is a much more sensitive issue and therefore I view calling a homosexual a fag to be more discriminative. This however is not really relevant for this topic.

I'm still standing by that my usage of words is correct, I apply basic logic that you twist in favor of religious views and do not use any more of double standards than you do.

I do support secularism to a certain extent. I do not like Churches participating in political campaigning or trying to reglate the political behaviour of people. I do however agree that they have their right to speak and right for their beliefs. I just do not want the religious institutions themselves to involve themselves in politics, religious views represented by religious political parties are however completely acceptable.

Probably not that good, but then again I do not compare religious to a violent and evil fantasy race.

Not really. I do not expect the religious to ever accept homosexuality or change their views about abortion. They are free to express themselves and they are free believe in what they want. Some seculraists may feel differently but at least that's how I feel, but then I'm not sure if I fit completely to the description of a secularist.

Well I can't possibly say what politicians do in your country, so I took my country as an example which I know best. Homosexuality is no more unnormal than heterosexuality.

EDIT:

Perhaps, but it seems some in this thread understand my point completely so I don't understand why you and Gnarf are having problems. Anyway I'll try to make it very simple for a last time what I think is right and what wrong behaviour from a religious institution.

ALLRIGHT
- Preaching against abortion, homosexuality, stemcell research.

NOT ALLRIGHT
- Supporting particular parties/candidates
- Directly expressing that voting against someone or something is against the will of God/Church (does really not involve preaching against abortion but does involve things like saying "voting for the legalisation of abortion is sin")
- Influencing the society via certain semireligious (political parties excluded) organisations which seek to influence other nonreligious government institutions such as education and courts. Opus Dei is an example of an organisation which practices at the very least "questionable" methods of influencing government institutions.

I think those should do it. There might be some issues that I have mentioned earlier in my posts but these really should be the main points.

EDIT: Added one more point to the NOT ALLRIGHT list which I mentioned in the Benedict XVI thread but forgot about when making the list.

[ May 15, 2005, 09:24: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

.....